Tink...Tink...Tink...chipping away

House vote doesn't only threaten gays

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/26/2004

Every politician has -- or should have -- a line that he or she will not cross just to gain political advantage. Even for the most ambitious and ruthless, there should be some things that are off-limits, some steps that aren't worth taking because the potential damage to the nation outweighs any political gain.

But like many Americans, I have a sneaking suspicion that the line has shifted considerably. In fact, after last week's events in the U.S. House of Representatives, you have to wonder if it still exists at all for some people.

Frustrated by the Senate's failure to produce even a majority of votes in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, House leaders decided to take a more controversial approach. Citing an obscure and largely untested provision of the U.S. Constitution, the House voted 233-194 to bar the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law dealing with gay marriage.

That is a power grab of breathtaking consequence. If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.

And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law -- say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress -- and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.

That's why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora's box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

It's hard to know what our Founding Fathers envisioned with that provision, or whether they understood its possible implications. But if implemented as House Republicans now intend, it would have enormous ramifications on the system of government and concepts of justice that have evolved over the last 200 years.

In remarks on the House floor, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, a black woman, pointed out that if segregationists back in the '50s had dared to pass such a law barring judicial review of civil rights cases, there would have been no Brown v. Board of Education ruling that ended segregation in our public schools.

"[This bill] would deny judicial review to an entire class of citizens because of passing partisan passions, and it is willing to trample on our Constitution in order to do so," U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York said. "The Republican leadership is trying to use a wedge issue to appeal to right-wing constituencies in a highly charged election year, and they are willing to trample on our Constitution. No issue is ever worth such a price."

As that debate and vote took place Thursday, the 9/11 commission was delivering its report to the president and the American people, pointing out that we had been vulnerable to attack on Sept. 11 because our nation's leaders had failed to act and had failed to treat terrorism as a priority. Shortly afterward, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that it was unlikely that any action would be taken on the panel's recommendations this year.

It seems the House is too busy with other things.

It's frightening that any lawmaker would want to usurp Constitutional checks and balances in this kind of a way. On one hand it shows they recognize they are wrong - gay marriage clearly IS Constitutional. On the other, it shows how desperate they are in their effort to thwart the natural expansion and liberalization of rights at whatever it costs to the democracy.

[top half removed on account of getting rid of quoteing material ]

over power the supreme court. That is completely outrageous! Im sry but if they have the power to do that, then where have we got ourselves? What is the the point if the government has complete control over every discision. Well those are my own two cents, or two dollars rather. Either way its all money, but this topic should really be considered alittle more fully.

[edit on 8/4/2004 by SirKillallott]

Originally posted by SirKillallott
"Gay" people are really really wrong, they go against everything nature intended for humans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This hatred is getting really tiring. Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Jonna
This hatred is getting really tiring. Educate yourself.

What is sad is people like him are willing to hand over all our rights to a congress that has proved over and over that all they are concerened with is gaining more power over us.


And for what?

Fear of the gay boogie man

Originally posted by Amuk
Fear of the gay boogie man

I just don't know where people learn such prejudice things! Everyone knows that the boogie man comes out from under the bed and homosexuals come out from the closet! DUH!




What do you think? Too far?

I don't like the power struggles I see in government these days... Congress passing rules to tell the courts what they can and can't rule over??? That's a dangerous precedent. The three branches of government are supposed to provide checks and balances, but this is ridiculous! What comes next -- the courts can't rule on any cases involving race? Gender? Anything involved with weaponry??

In spite of my rant, I have the horrid sneaking suspicion that this sort of "corralling" of each others' powers has been going on ever since the early days of the Republic. But in those days (with limited information access and simpler times) it was much easier to see this and perhaps stop it. Now we are so overwhelmed with information that something like this simply slides right by us.

Bad Congress! Bad, bad, bad!! No Pension-biscuit!!!

Originally posted by Jonna

I just don't know where people learn such prejudice things! Everyone knows that the boogie man comes out from under the bed and homosexuals come out from the closet!

DUH!

I hardly see them as such a great threat that we should give up any chance of remaining a free country to save ourselves from the thought of two men gittin it on.

While renting movies of two women gittin it on I might add

[Top half removed ]

As well plz read my signiture after you are done

[edit on 8/3/2004 by SirKillallott]

[edit on 8/4/2004 by SirKillallott]

I dont believe in your god so there goes 99% of your arguement.


As far as it "not working" my wife giving me a BJ dosent "work" either, does that make us wrong?

Your haterd does indeed show through quite clearly

What makes you hate someone that has done NOTHING to you?

Originally posted by Amuk
I dont believe in your god

Thats O.K. Amuk he belives in you.

Originally posted by mwm1331

Originally posted by Amuk
I dont believe in your god

Thats O.K. Amuk he belives in you.

Yes, he believes in you Amuk and all other Americans, as you are "God's Chosen People", it said so in the.........now what book did it say that in again.........no......someone's going to have to enlighten me.........
In what work of fiction did the author become delusional and state that,
"American's are Gods Chosen People"..??

Anyone.......anyone.....??

i do not understand gays, but i do not hate them either. Jonna, on your other thread you mentioned community and bonding. I have no problem with bonding and loving, but homosexuality is not about those two things; its about SEX. I love other men and have had great bonding experiences, but i dont have sex with them. I understand that believe being gay is not a choice. I could lean towards the scientific theories that gays have different genes that make them lust same gender. Or perhaps it is natures way of cutting down on population... On the religious side of things, i think there may be something evil behind homosexuality, but i dont think gays themselves are evil, rather confused and/or victims.

i know i kind of got off topic here. just felt expressing myself.

How are gays confused or victims?

Homophobes are the real victims, graced with an inability to understand, or live and let live.

It's just about SEX. You should stop thinking out loud, if indeed you are thinking at all.

What in the name of Lily Savage do you feel so threatened by?

It was not long after my teen years that I realised just how narrow and prejudiced my opinons were regarding the gay community. Growing up surrounded by those who were unwilling to educate or understand, thankfully I broke free of those chains, I advise you do the same.

Koka it says so in the book of MWM1331

Nice to see my personal beliefs worry you so much

Allthough I don't really understand why they affect you.

Hi Sir Kill Alot:

Your position on "homosexuality in Nature" and the whole concept of "gay marriages" is whacked. Your prejudice is evidently taken from the Hebrew Scriptures ("be fruitful and multiply, and cover the face of the land") reflecting a Judeo-Christian weltanshauung.

Are you one of those "Bible Believing Christians" who believe a document they cannot even read in the original?

Are you a trained "anthropologist" who knows anything at all about human sexuality?

Despite your ignorant rhetoric to the contrary MOTHER NATURE has no opinion whatsoever on HomoSexuality: NATURE in fact has no declaration either way about either homosexuality, heterosexuality, bi sexuality or even a-sexuality: to NATURE (i.e. the natural world) SEX is just, well...SEX, with no distinctions.

And there is a great deal of scientific evidence recently released to the general public that higher primates (such as dolphins, orangutans and homo-sapiens-sapiens etc.) practice homosexuality in various forms throughout the adult sexual cycle without any hinderance.

Most of this important scientific evidence is now being published for the masses for the first time since it was first scientifically analysed in the 1950s and 1960s--having been supressed by political motives (fear of losing grant money, from protests within government or religious institutions who DO NOT want this information out). But we are living in the Information Age, and Tought Titty Said the Kitty:

Here's a recent posting onthe subject I just couldn't resist:

QUOTE

"Same-sex birds do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bi-sexual activity is actually fairly common within the Animal Kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now.

They display classic pair-bonding behavior�entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have anal sex, while ignoring and even shunning potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

On the other hand, they could just be amusing themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

"They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says.

"They just like doing it with each other. Two males, bumping and grinding away. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff for them, but they continue to do it anyway."

So much for Mother Nature.

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.

Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently.

Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates.

The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality?

Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England.

"The bottom line is that anything that happens in other higher Primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in Humans," he said.

Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for purely social bonding is a possible example, adding,

"One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."

END QUOTE

No, Sir Kill Alot: Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom is rife, and your Hebrew Scriptures are UNSCIENTIFIC SUPERSTITION (after all, the sun and the stars were NOT REALLY created AFTER Vegetation, but you'd never know that by reading Genesis 1:5-6---so much for the Bible!)

And yet you have the audacity to quote Genesis to support your warped ideas about Gay Sex (or even "Gay Marriage")?

If you like your bible stories so much, try reading I Samuel chapter 20 when Saul the ClanChief of Israelite Tribelets found David and Jonathan doing more than, well...holding hands and exchanging Underwear:

"You son of a Perverse and Rebellious Female ! Don;t you know that you have chosen to MARRY to SON OF JESSE to the Confusion of your MOTHER's NAKEDNESS and to your own CONFUSION? How will your DYNASTY be established if you continue like this (i.e with another male)?"

But David wrote some very moving Love Poetry to his darling when his lover Jonathan was killed in battle against the Filistin:

"O Jonathan, Jonathan! My Love for You was Full of Mystery..FAR SURPASSING THAT OF WOMAN!" (Read it for yourself, bible boy: 2 Samuel chapter 1)

Now why on earth would you base your warped ideas of SEX IN NATURE on the ravings of the levitical priests ("thou shalt not lie man on man, it is ritual Abomination...") or with the racist vomit placed into the mouth of the xenophobic maniac clan god of post Exilic Israel (YHWH or "Yahweh") which you can read in your English translations of the Masoretic text of the unpointed Paleo Hebrew?

Do you even know what a ritual "abomination" is (Heb. Toqebah) within the cult of YHWH?

Can you even read the Paleo-Hebrew of Bere#h (Genesis) ??

Then why do you insist on quoting a text you cannot even read, let alone understand, then try to get people on this thread to believe your warped rosy coloured view of NATURE and the role that gay sex plays in it?

You're deluding yourself. Look around and see the world the way it is.

By the way, I like your moniker (Sir Kill Alot): the clan god of the Jews would like it too (read Deuteronomy chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 13: "genocide them all, leave nothing breathing, the men, the women, the children and the animals--burn their bones upon my altar as a perpetual holocaust, saith YHWH the clan god of Israel...")

So much for your Biblical "God..." !

Originally posted by mwm1331
Koka it says so in the book of MWM1331

Nice to see my personal beliefs worry you so much

Allthough I don't really understand why they affect you.

People who delude themselves always worry me.

You are not the only person who has this within their signature, which is the reason for asking, I was merely enquiring as to the source of this quote. I thought G. Dubya may have been in contact with the almighty again and decided to re-write the scriptures. The Israeli's have been playing the delusional ace for long enough.

As for how it affects me, unfortunately I don't have much of a choice in the matter, the good old Uncle US of Stateside seems intent on fullfilling the prophecies of Armageddon.

Edit (Spl)

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Koka]

oh koka the enlightened one,

great master of realization not long after teen years.........

this is obviously a very passionate subject for you, so i will tread lightly, but you got me all wrong. i will repeat homoSEXuality is about SEX. not love, and not bonding. same as heteroSEXuality, biSEXuality, aSEXuality and any other SEXualities out there. i am no homophobe, so i have no problem living and let live. i only understand heterosexualty. i can tolerate all others. if you care to re-read my post, not once did i say i was threatened. go on and be gay if you want, I GIVE YOU MY PERMISSION also, if you peek at my verb choices, you might remember the word "think" in there somewhere. "think" is different than "know" buddy. and yes, i was thinking; still am. i am an open minded individual who has been wrong before, and will be wrong again.

-to answer your question why do i THINK gays are confused and or/victims? - because i think it is very possible for all of mankind to be tricked into thinking homosexuality is natural. have you ever considered the possibility that reason is a disease? that maybe to trust is better than breaking everything down just incase there is some sinister (call satan if you want) force who is one step ahead and will trick you with your own reason? i have considered that possibilty, i am not claiming it to be the solid absolute truth. i am still searching myself so if you have trouble with it, its ok, i forgive you.

-just as in your teen years, you are so sure you KNOW. hate to say it, but you're the type of person that makes the same mistake twice. so confidant in your "breaking free from the chains." whatever guy. thanks for the advice about 'educating myself,' but facts are only so until proven otherwise.

-lost

Originally posted by lost
i will repeat homoSEXuality is about SEX. not love, and not bonding. same as heteroSEXuality, biSEXuality, aSEXuality and any other SEXualities out there.

Well after I have sex with my girlfriend, I feel much more emotionally connected to her then when we don't for a while. Hence, sex strenghens the emotional bond for me. I guess I'm just some sort of freak then.

My name is SirKillallott (it does make a difference)
I am not open minded on this subject (something that pisses me off) so dont bother and change my mind on this subjet (plz no comments). You are wasteing ur time on me which is something i would rather you not do.

You are getting off topic. This is not just about gays, but about the government influencing the supream court. If you would like to continue defending gay people, it would be best if you joined a new fourm with that topic.

Finally my views on gay people come from what I was raised to be. My dad very strongly presisted that gays were wrong. I completely supported him and agreed with him. I do not wish to argue with people who obviously know more on the subject than I do. This does not mean that I agree with you in any way what so ever. I do not apretiate your time put into your post, and I find that some of the things you said are very insulting, Amadeus.

I find that you do not understand the difference between humans and animals, even with the most smart and closely related animals to us humans. I do understand the possiblitites and I have considered them. For the record animals do not think the same way as us humans. They have one thing on their mind, survival. They want to survive in anyway possible and as such they are driven to sexual urges. Wether this is a stuffed frog, another of the same sex or the right way, they dont know the difference. All they know is they are fullfilling what they where ment to do. Us humans on the other hand are able to reason and undertand things that animals cannot. Does this make a difference? Yes and no. Both humans and animals are driven by the need to survive. Thus we both get sexual urges wether that be a stuffed frog, another of the same sex, or of the right sex. Personally however, i am able to distinguish between a stuffed frog, another of the same sex and the right sex. Beucase i can reason I am able to know which one will be the most productive in allowing me to pass down my genes. This, even if i had urges for male to male sex, would stop me for I know that it is not what i am intented to do. Finally i would like to say that marrige is the uniting of a man and a woman under the watchful eye of god bounding them together until death shall part. If there is any thing that they dont understand in that, well its not my fault. By all means let them have there fun, but plz, plz dont let them be able to get married (its almost as pathetic as animal marriges ]. As far as im concerend it would be a great insult to me and all who have been married (properly). I would wish to discuss this no further, as I am wasteing my time here. Amadeus and all other gay supporters, you are entitled to what you think, I am enititled to mine. Neither me or you will want to give in so just forget it, dont bother.

-SirKillallott

[edit on 8/4/2004 by SirKillallott]

Originally posted by mwm1331

Originally posted by Amuk
I dont believe in your god

Thats O.K. Amuk he belives in you.

And I believe in, and respect, your right to believe in him.

I just do not agree with someone telling me or anyone else what THEY have to do because of your beliefs.

Using the bible to tell me what to do would be the same as me quoting the Koran and telling you that you must live this way because MY book says so.


For the record I am not a muslim either I just used it as an example